Fantasy Budget

Maura Reynolds writes in the Los Angeles Times: "At times, Democrats could barely contain their anger. Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) accused the administration of acting illegally and unconstitutionally.

"'What the administration has said is that when it comes to national security, the problem is that the Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world,' Feingold said. ' . . . The real problem is that the president seems to have a pre-1776 view of the world. That's the problem here.'

Poll Questions

Carl Bialik writes in the Wall Street Journal: "What does the public think about the Bush administration's wiretapping program?

"It depends on how you ask the question.

"A half dozen polls on the issue have turned up different conclusions, and a key distinction appears to be the way pollsters identify the people who might have their emails and phone calls monitored as part of an effort to fight terrorism. Recent poll questions have referred to 'suspected terrorists,' 'people in the United States' and 'American citizens.'

"For instance, in December, polling firm Rasmussen Reports asked, 'Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?' Nearly two-thirds said yes; just 23% said no. Yet 51% told USA Today/CNN's Gallup poll last month that the wiretapping program was wrong, when its target was described as 'telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so.'"

But Bialik only gets at the half of it.

Even the questions mentioning "American citizens" are still essentially framed as a Republican talking points.

The central question is not whether wiretapping suspected terrorists is a good idea. The more relevant questions are: Do you think Bush should get congressional or judicial permission first?; Does the lack of oversight make you concerned that innocent Americans are being spied upon?

Any poll question about a tactic for fighting terror that implies the alternative is doing nothing is bound to garner a lot of public approval in this day and age.

What about asking something like: What sort of anti-terror domestic spying program would you prefer: One without any judicial or congressional checks and balances that appears to be listening in on thousands of innocent Americans -- or one approved by Congress, where federal judges have to give their approval first?

Abramoff Watch

The White House is refusing to turn over official photographs of Bush with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. And blogger Josh Marshall last month exposed the scrubbing of Abramoff photos at the Web site of Reflections Photography, a studio that does photo shoots for many Republican political events.

Was the White House involved?

At yesterday's briefing , press secretary Scott McClellan issued an utterly disingenuous denial that he knows anything about the scrubbing allegation -- belied by his own sly suggestion that White House involvement has been refuted. Which it hasn't.

"Q Scott, there have been various reports that photographs of the President with Jack Abramoff have disappeared from the archives of photographic studios, at least one. Could you tell us whether the White House or anyone working at the White House's behest has taken any steps to remove any photographs that the President --

"MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know anything about that. I think that I saw some story where the very company that you're mentioning said otherwise. So I think you ought to see what they said."

Over at Huffington Post , they've reviewed what's publicly known about meetings with Bush at the White House that Abramoff set up for his clients.

Valerie Plame Watch

John Dickerson writes in Slate about his sudden appearance in a letter from special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's case to indicted former vice presidential chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

The letter reads: "We also advise you that we understand that reporter John Dickerson of Time magazine discussed the trip by Mr. Wilson with government officials at some time on July 11 or after, subsequent to Mr. Cooper learning about Mr. Wilson's wife."

Dickerson, now working at Slate, writes that those conversations actually took place before he learned of Plame's identity from his then-colleague Matt Cooper.

But Dickerson also explains in the greatest depth so far why the original Time story cast the Plame leak as part of an orchestrated Bush Administration war on renegade former ambassador Joseph Wilson -- rather than as some offhand mention.

Dickerson writes that on a trip to Africa, two senior administration officials, on background, urged him to look into who in the CIA sent Wilson on his fateful trip to Niger. This was before Dickerson learned from Cooper that presidential counselor Karl Rove had specifically mentioned Wilson's wife.

Dickerson adds that when he learned Plame's CIA cover had been blown, "[i]t seemed obvious that the people pushing me to look into who sent Wilson knew exactly the answer I'd find. Yet they were really careful not to let the information slip, which suggested that they knew at the time Plame's identity was radioactive."

Rove on the War Path

Kenneth Lovett writes in the New York Post: "President Bush's top adviser contacted Gov. Pataki personally to rip Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno for comments that the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq.

"An angry Karl Rove called Pataki over the weekend, a source close to the governor said.....

"Bruno's comments on Iraq came when he was asked if Bush's sagging poll numbers are worrisome to New York Republicans.

"'Frankly, I think it's time, like most people think, for him to get the troops out of there and bring them home,' Bruno said."

$1,000 Reward

Democrats.com, a Web site angling for Bush's impeachment, has posted a $1,000 reward to any reporter who will directly ask Bush this question:

"How can you claim you were trying to avoid war through the UN, when you told Prime Minister Blair on Jan. 31, 2003, that if you failed to get a resolution from the UN authorizing war, 'military action would follow anyway' - including a scheme to paint a U.S. spy plane in U.N. colors to provoke an Iraqi attack on the U.N. itself?"

The question is based on assertions in a new book by a British human rights lawyer. (See this BBC story .)

Poll Watch

Vaughn Ververs writes for CBSNews.com about a new poll on the media.

"Asked to compare the media's treatment of President Bush compared to past presidents, 35% said they thought the press has been harder on the current president, 18% said the media has been easier in its coverage and 45% said he's been treated about the same as others."

Here are the complete results .

"Republicans are more than five times as likely as Democrats to say the news media has been harder on George W. Bush compared to other presidents. In 1995, it was the Democrats who were more critical of the media's treatment of then President Clinton.

"On the matter of telling the truth, 59% think the news media tells the truth all or most of the time, while 40% say they are truthful only some of the time or hardly ever. The public is more critical of the Bush Administration on this measure. A majority --- 59% -- says the Bush Administration tells the truth only sometimes or hardly ever; just 39% say the Administration is truthful always or most of the time."